Bishop Schneider speaks, sheep continue to starve

Rorate Caeli recently posted an exclusive interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider wherein he made some noteworthy statements; some rather bold (relative to the flaccid state of the episcopacy as a whole) and others that, frustratingly, stop just short of addressing the current state of affairs in the Church head-on.

On the latter note, for instance, Bishop Schneider summed up the present situation thus:

The very crisis of the Church in our days consists in the ever growing phenomenon that those who don’t fully believe and profess the integrity of the Catholic faith frequently occupy strategic positions in the life of the Church, such as professors of theology, educators in seminaries, religious superiors, parish priests and even bishops and cardinals. And these people with their defective faith profess themselves as being submitted to the Pope.

Surely no one really expected Bishop Schneider to finger the Bishop of Rome as chief among those who “don’t fully believe and profess the integrity of the Catholic faith,” but God knows this is the case. So too does Bishop Schneider, which is precisely why his words frustrate.

He continued:

The height of confusion and absurdity manifests itself when such semi-heretical clerics accuse those who defend the purity and integrity of the Catholic faith as being against the Pope – as being according to their opinion in some way schismatics.

The frustration continues…

Has any member of the sacred hierarchy attacked “those who defend the purity and integrity of the Catholic faith” more ferociously than Francis?

The truth is, those who do not join the Insult Comic of Rome in denigrating those who stand with tradition are, at least on this point, against the pope.

Toward the end of the interview, Bishop Schneider says of the Office of Peter:

In fulfilling one of his most important tasks, the Pope has to strive so that “the whole flock of Christ might be kept away from the poisonous food of error” (First Vatican Council, ibd.)… We must always pray that God provides His Church with traditional-minded Popes. However, we have to believe in these words: “It is not for you to have knowledge of the time and the order of events which the Father has kept in his control” (Acts 1: 7).

For those with ears to hear, it’s obvious enough that Bishop Schneider is acknowledging that Francis has little regard for the primary duty assigned to the Petrine Office, and since he is light years away from being “tradition-minded,” we must beg God to grant us a faithful pope.

That’s all well and good, but pretty much every Rorate Caeli reader already knows this. In other words, Bishop Schneider is essentially just throwing a little red meat to so-called “traditionalists” (aka Catholics).

Don’t get me wrong, I’m as carnivorous as anyone (grilled bone-in ribeyes preferred), but what the Church really needs in our day, and desperately lacks, is shepherds who are willing to feed that portion of the flock that is flat out starving; i.e., those who are still under the gravely mistaken impression that Francis does fully believe and profess the integrity of the Catholic faith.

I have little doubt that I’ll be criticized by some for “nit picking” (as my friends at Rorate have done in the past), and for allowing the “perfect to become the enemy of the good,” and for failing to recognize prudence when I see it, and wah, wah, wah…

So be it. The Household of God has been on fire for more than fifty years. Tiptoeing about so as not to disturb the slumbering children isn’t being “wise as a serpent;” it’s aiding and abetting the arsonist.

In any case, moving on to the topic of liturgy, Bishop Schneider was asked if the “changes in the Roman liturgy post-Vatican II contributed to the current crisis in the Church.”

To which he made some very curious statements…

Indeed the very source of the current crisis in the Church, the crisis of marriage, of the family and of the morality in general is not the liturgical reform, but the defects in faith, the doctrinal relativism, from which flows the moral and liturgical relativism.

For, if I believe in a defective manner, I will live a defective moral life and I will worship in a defective, indifferent manner. It is necessary first to restore the clearness and firmness of the doctrine of faith and of morals in all levels and, from there, start to improve the liturgy. The integrity and the beauty of the faith demands the integrity and the beauty of one’s moral life and this demands the integrity and the beauty of the public worship.

Begging His Excellency’s pardon, he has it exactly backwards.

The maxim, one that Bishop Schneider most certainly knows very well, is lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi – loosely translated, the law of prayer (worship) establishes the law of belief, which itself establishes the way in which one lives.

In its treatment of the liturgy, even the new Catechism renders the maxim as meaning, “The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays…” (cf CCC 1124).

In essence, this novel twist on the traditional understanding of liturgy would make of Holy Mass a mere outgrowth of the moral life; i.e., a largely human endeavor born of faith, you know… like the services created by and for the heretics.

Bishop Schneider doesn’t believe that.

One is left wondering why he feels compelled to pretend that the post-conciliar liturgy, the Novus Ordo Missae in particular, isn’t a primary instigator of the current ecclesial crisis?

Clearly, Bishop Schneider knows better. Within the very same interview he said:

Perhaps such clerics [as those who oppose the Mass of Ages] have fear of the great power of the truth irradiating from the celebration of the traditional Mass. One can compare the traditional Mass with a lion: Let him free, and he will defend himself.

Has it occurred to Bishop Schneider that one may compare the NovusOrdo to a lion as well; one that devours the Catholic faith?

Of course it has, but don’t take my word for it.

In a 2012 interview, His Excellency spoke of “five wounds of the liturgical mystical body of Christ” that he equated with instances of “rupture,” among which he numbered: the celebration of Mass facing the people, Communion in the hand, the loss of the Latin language, and the use of female acolytes.

Each one of these examples of rupture can be remedied in the Novus Ordo by the priest should he so choose, but there is one “wound” that was mentioned by Bishop Schneider that is entirely different; namely, “the new Offertory prayers,” about which he said:

They are an entirely new creation and had never been used in the Church. They do less to express the mystery of the sacrifice of the Cross than that of a banquet; thus they recall the prayers of the Jewish Sabbath meal.

In other words, Bishop Schneider was plainly acknowledging a very serious defect in the NovusOrdo – one so grave that it fails to adequately express the Catholic faith to the point of favoring a protestant error, and this particular wound, unlike the others, is part of the rite itself!

So, why does he now feel compelled to speak as if the post-conciliar liturgy is anything other than a primary contributor to the present crisis of faith in the Church? In other words, what has changed since 2012?

I’ll tell you what changed:

Benedict XVI, a pope who no doubt agreed with Bishop Schneider’s assessment of the Novus Ordo, fled for fear of the wolves, and taking his place was a wolf by the name of Jorge; a man who doesn’t treat those who think that the NovusOrdo is defective very kindly.

Could it be that Bishop Schneider’s priorities have shifted in such a way as to place greater emphasis on preserving his “full communion” status, and less on warning the faithful of grave liturgical dangers?

I’ll leave it to readers to decide for themselves.

Concluding on an up note, I have to commend Bishop Schneider for speaking up in defense of the Society of St. Pius X:

Those who have fear of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X ultimately have fear of the perennial Catholic truths and of its demands in the moral and the liturgical domain.

Hey, Mike Voris, pay attention… Bishop Schneider went on to say:

… one has to consider the life and the work of these Catholic priests and faithful of the SSPX as a gift for the Church in our days – even as one of the several instruments which the Divine Providence uses to remedy the enormity of the current general crisis of the faith, of the morals and of the liturgy inside the Church.

Bishop Schneider concluded his remarks on the Society by saying:

I consider their General Superior, His Excellency Monsignor Bernard Fellay, as an exemplarily and true Catholic bishop. There is some hope for a canonical recognition of the SPPX.

When canonical recognition may be granted to the SSPX is anyone’s guess, but I agree with this assessment of Bishop Fellay wholeheartedly.

Let us hope and pray that “full communion” prelates, like Bishop Schneider, will not wait until the Society is regularized to begin emulating Bishop Fellay, and to address head-on “the enormity of the current general crisis of the faith, of the morals and of the liturgy” from their own privileged places “inside the Church.”

Related Posts

Latest Comments

my2centsFebruary 3, 2016

At present, Bishop Schnieder is one of the best out there in Novus Ordo land. However, I agree with Louie. When a Bishop (or any prelate) comes forward and actually makes a huge difference in turning the Barque of Peter around, then there will be real hope. Right now, for Francis, it’s full speed ahead—in the wrong direction.

Louie, it’s not so much that you ‘nit-pick’ what Bishop Schneider said, it’s that you place a burden on his shoulders that he cannot bear.

Who elected him as the one who will say what needs to be said? This very prudent man goes as far as he feels he can – and no further. Do we criticize him for that? Why do we expect him to be poster boy for Tradition? It’s unfair to expect what he obviously does not want to give at this time.

As well, it is unfair for you to impute bad motives to him – like his desire to stay ‘in communion’ being his motive for not speaking out. What do you expect him to say? Many of us want him (and others) to come out blazing and blow the lid off the corruption – to charge in like the Marines and kick butt…is this what we really want?

Sober second thought says Bishop Schneider gathers more flies with honey than vinegar. His measured criticisms garner respect, and thus reasonable people can come to realize what he says is true.

What would happen if he did come out blazing? How many Novus Ordo folks would be convinced?

We want it all now. But this Church is going to fall into darkness in the foreseeable future and there is nothing we can do. Our Lady said the Church would be eclipsed – a shadow will fall over the Church but the Sun will still be shining and the shadow will pass. So let’s not throw those few who do see the dangers under the bus.

There are two kinds of heretics – one who never utters his heresy and thereby does scandal to no one. The second kind is ipso facto no longer Catholic, has no authority and is ‘anathema’ = one who is a public heretic. But since the Schneiders of the Novus Ordo belong to the falsehood, it is almost pointless pointing them out, except if one belongs to the Novus Ordo and, having a vague sense that they should convert to the exiled Catholic faith, can’t help pointing out those who like pointing others out. It’s like a heresy merry-N.O.-round. No one is actually Catholic until they get off and confirm to truth. And yes, that means exile from the merry-go-round.
–
“And in like manner He ordered the Apostles only and those who should lawfully succeed them to feed – that is to govern with authority – all Christian souls. ” The Novus Ordo and its collaborators feed no one, as belial can never feed the flock of Christ.

Thats sort of like not being in full communion with the Catholic Church. My understanding is that you are either in communion with the Church or you’re not….just as you would either be a heretic or not.

I think this will quell the SSPX attacks from “CMTV”.
Although I doubt they will utter a word about this interview regarding who they say is the “Athanasius of our time”.

However, this prelate says one thing and does another.
He is still “celebrating” the NO mess. And he omits key issues.
Although the maxim has always been “qui tacet consentire videtur”, it would be nice for him to say it.

Bishop de Galarreta, SSPX 7-29-2011:
“Archbishop Lefebvre used to say to us, “They have dethroned Him”. Yes, they systematically disregarded the primacy and the royalty of Our Lord, His rights, the rights of God. They are for human rights. The denial of the rights of God with the declaration of the rights of man. They dethroned Our Lord in Himself, in His rights by freedom of conscience, by freedom of thought, by the freedom to sin, by freedom of worship, by religious freedom. He has truly been dethroned. But they also dethroned Our Lord in His Church through ecumenism, for if Christ is king, the Church is the queen. And they dethroned Our Lord in His Vicar and in His bishops by collegiality and by the demolition, ultimately, of all authority.”

How does a present day Bishop overcome this? By refusing collegiality?

Total nonsence ? Well about 100 priests of the resistance would obviously disagree with that statement along with all the faithful who im sure will have looked into this quite alot before making in some cases big sacrifices to attend the resistance masses. Im neither a member of the SSPX or resistence or a sedevacantist but i do listen to quite a few sermons from the resistence and it seems after following up claims made by the resistence i personally understand why they take the postion they do. maybe for you its a over simplistic view of things but this is how i see it bishop fellay is keen to get the canonical status from francis at a time when things being said by francis himself are plain crazy ,diabolical and most certainly not catholic. Would the Archbishop seek recognition off francis ? I think hand on our hearts wed have to say we very much doubt it.

Thats what it sounds like more and more if you listen to Bp Fellay. During the last little talk I heard him give, he makes it sound as if him and Francis are best buds and that Francis really, sincerely respects the SSPX.

Whether or not one supports the position of the SSPX, I think that most would have to agree that there has certainly been a change in attitude between their initial leadership and their current leadership. In other words, disagree with his methods or not, I dont see Abp Lefebvre taking this same easy-going stance that Bp Fellay has seemingly decided to take. When I hear him (Fellay) speak I hear very little opposition in his words.

A couple of years ago Bp Fellay denounced Bergoglio as a ‘modernist’ – a heretic. Now the spokesman for the SSPX is no longer defending the faith against the heretic but negotiating how to destroy the SSPX by open admixture with error. That every SSPX Mass loses its Catholicity by being offered in union with Bergoglio is evil enough. Now Bp Fellay must subject the whole Society to the full intent of satan in his neat New Order war against Christ and His Bride. Sadly, the SSPX will become what every whore becomes – whatever the whore master wants them to be.

The good Bishops words are always cogent and welcome. He seems to be one of the few shepherds worthy of the name. He keeps ramping up his comments with measured effect. Cardinal Msgr Louis-Eduoard Pie of Poiters (d1912) put this in perspective:
“The imperative duty and the noble custom of holy Church is to pay homage especially to the truth when it is ignored, to profess it when it is threatened. There is a mediocre merit to claim to be its apostle and its supporter when all acknowledge and adhere to it. To make so much of the human state of the truth and to love it so little for itself that we deny it as soon as it is no longer popular, as soon as it does not have number, authority, preponderance, success : would that not be a new way of doing our duty, and of understanding honor ?
Let it be known: the good remains good, and must continue to be called as such, even when “nobody does it” (Ps. XIII, 3).
Furthermore, a small number of persons putting forth claims is sufficient to save the integrity of the doctrines. And the integrity of the doctrine is the only chance for the restoration of order in the world.“
We must always remember the last two sentences and burn them into our memory while acting accordingly.

Im not sure how we equate what vatican 2 bishops say with the actual Catholic Church that used to exist pre-vatican 2. What exactly is it that is good about any vatican 2 bishop in any actual Catholic sense? This blog that you post on denounces vatican 2 daily (as it should) and all of these bishops, whether only by a bit or with their entirety, defend it. How are any of them good? Is not just one little drop of poison enough to infect the whole tun of wine? Relativism is a very bad thing.

+Lefebvre:
“In the face of the constant progress of the auto demolition of the Church, the Mystical Body of Our Lord, which is the living Church, reacts and demands that the hierarchy help it to survive, not die. Numerous members of the Mystical Body go to extraordinary lengths in order to survive, doing all they can to find faithful priests and bishops who will give them the sources of life.
In such a predicament, it is the law of survival which commands, and no positive law, even ecclesiastical, can contradict this primary and fundamental law. Authority, law in the Church, as in all society, is at the service of life, and ultimately supernatural life, which is life eternal.”

I avoid reading these interviews w/ N.O. prelates because I believe they are bending the flock’s mind, but also think LV failed here: “those who don’t FULLY believe” “SEMI-heretical clerics” “DEFECTIVE faith” “TRULY faithful Catholics” – surely this is VC2 speak. Not Catholic doctrine, i.e. either you are pregnant/not.

I also was surprised LV didn’t comment on these “sneaker” untruths:

(1) “The traditional and more than millennial-old rite of the Holy Mass, which not even the Council of Trent changed, because the Ordo Missae before and after that Council was almost identical [get that “almost identical”– so Trent did change the mass (look how sneaker sneaks that lie in!)], proclaims and powerfully evangelizes the Incarnation and the Epiphany [Incarnation and Epiphany–really? Thought the mass was proclaiming the Passion, Resurrection & Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ] the ineffably saintly and immense God, who in the liturgy as “God with us,” as “Emmanuel,” becomes so little (?!) and so close to us. The traditional rite of the Mass is a highly artfully and, at the same time, a powerful proclamation of the Gospel, realizing the work of our salvation [run that phrase slowly by again: ‘realizing the work of our salvation’ — does it mean“holy sacrifice of the mass? Just like the LatinMass Society all you need to participate fruitfully is to know Emmanual/God is really present–where do they get it from? How many Paul 6 ‘masses’ has Sneaker offered – just like Benny and Burke!]
(2) “According to the intention of Pope Benedict XVI, and the clear norms of the Instruction “Universae Ecclesiae,” all Catholic seminarians have to know the traditional form of the Mass and be able to celebrate it.” Funny benny would intend something for seminarians that he doesn’t do himself, but the norms are public: “21. Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin8 and, where pastoral needs suggest it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite. [“possibility” & “opportunity where pastoral needs suggest it” is not “have to know” or “must be able to celebrate”] http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cedinsumpon.HTM

Also sad to find out Rorate wholly owned subsidiary of SSPX/Fatima Center – here is propaganda feed in the questions:
(1) “Why does Your Excellency think that so many Catholics are afraid of the SSPX or anxious about any association with it?” [Who is Rorate talking about? Has there been a poll? How many Catholics have even heard of SSPX—let alone are “afraid” or “anxious” about associating w/it? It’s like the Climate Change fears!]
(2) “What gifts can the SSPX bring the mainstream church?” Where have we heard this suggestion before–in the synod where heretic Gang of H8 cardinals suggest that sodomites, adulterers and fornicators can bring gifts to the Church. Two false conclusions from this false coupling: (1) SSPX is sinful and outside the “mainstream (VC2) Church”and (2) If progressives can bring in sodomites, conservatives can bring in SSPX (quid pro quo)/conservatives will accept sodomite and adulterous communion (offense to almighty God for canonical status). You find this reflected in Sneaker’s answer: “the healthier(!) part corresponds to the major part of the SSPX and I consider their General Superior, His Excellency Monsignor Bernard Fellay, as an exemplarily and true Catholic bishop.” [healthier, but sick (get it!). Also blatant plug for Fellay–what about the other two SSPX bishops (Fellay having already kicked WMson)? Are they not “true Catholic bishops”?]. “There is some hope for canonical status” (if you swallow the quid & kick out every bishop but Fellay—shame on you LV for supporting this—but Fellay might kick you off the speaker circuit if you don’t).
(3) “And should faithful Catholics pray for a traditional pope to arrive soon?” [Arrive from where? Heaven? They label section above this “papotry” (sic) and then they lead one to conclude a “traditional pope” is the messiah. What is the difference between a pope and a “traditional pope” (maybe salsa & siscoe will write a book and NOT use the word “Catholic” lest it offend sneaker’s boss (and I don’t mean Jesus Christ))?
(4) “What will the typical parish priest face now that he didn’t face before the Synod began? What pressures, such as the washing of women’s feet on Maundy Thursday after the example of Francis, will burden the parish priest even more than he is burdened today?” [False conclusions: (1) “Typical” priests are not sodomite and/or pedophile heretics as ignorant of the Faith as their flock, but are burdened and pressured and against the synod action (even though majority of bishops who ordained them voted for)/washing women’s feet; (2)Your parish priest isn’t washing women’s feet and giving communion to the local ‘married” lesbian Buddhist Elizabeth Seton Bladensburg Maryland Catlick High School Art teacher because he wants to: he is “burdened” and “pressured” or so he tells all the screaming neocons—have to read nat’l catlick disorter/New Ways to find out what he tells the screamin’ libs. (2) Washing women’s feet is = to communion for sodomites/adulterers/fornicators & drive by annulments (or even female altar girls—it is actually conservatives who keep telling everyone washing a woman’s foot=woman priest (normalizing the idea by repetition to “traditionalists”)).]
(5) “We are just a year away from the 100th anniversary of Fatima. Russia was arguably not consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and certainly not converted. The Church, while ever spotless, is in complete disarray – maybe worse than during the Arian Heresy.” [Used to be just the progressives distorted “the early church” to advance their agenda; now it’s the self-called “traditionalists” distorting history to advance their “recognize & resist position. False conclusions: (1) The Church was in worse disarray during the Arian heresy than it is now (even though “modernism” is the synthesis of ALL heresies); (2) Russia “arguably” not consecrated leading the interviewee to trot out “the Fatima Center/SSPX” trump “argument” against breaking from manifest heretics: Who would consecrate Russia? (3) Suggesting that Modernism can only be defeated when Russia is consecrated to the Immaculate Heart by [ALL the (heretic) Bishops] and (heretic) Pope. And of course sneaker delivers: “We have to pray that the Pope may soon consecrate explicitly Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, then She [why is “she” capitalized] will win, as the Church prayed since the old times: “Rejoice O Virgin Mary, for thou alone have destroyed all heresies in the whole world” [Doesn’t Sneaker/Rorate notice the past tense of that “old time” prayer? The victory has already been won. The question is will anyone who frequents Sneaker’s Church or reads Rorate (et al) make it to heaven?]

Johnjobilbee. because we are living in the end times very close to Our Lords second coming and the visable church is going through her passion as we all know. The church will have its own judas iscariot just as our Lord did. (Bishop fulton sheen ) We have prophecy old & new , we have the alta vendita of the judeo masonic sect working towards it for many years we see the playing out of this through the second vatican council , there are the protocols of the elders of zion. The NWO is isnt just playing a game they are working towards the enthronement of the Antichrist in the world who will be the great peace maker during WW3 which is closer than most people think francis has to unite and destroy whats left of the visable main stream chruch in preperation for the Antichrist. These arent wacky ideas its all very real and playing out before our eyes i do not endorse the diamond brothers but heres a vid that in regards to just 1 prophecy that of ST Malachyhttp://youtu.be/sLaSMLSgEmQ
for those who dont know these are hard line sedevacantists. another video here from a lay catholic theologian Dr kelly bowring who also has a website with lots of information. video here http://youtu.be/cIk88U9VYM8

I don’t think you’re going far enough. The church of darkness is the Vatican II sect. Not only do the documents contradict prior papal declarations, but all of the V2 popes appear to be heretics or apostates. Do you really think JPII is a saint or heroic Catholic? Or that Paul VI is blessed? What do you base this on, while simultaneously rejecting Jorge?

There was never a time that God was Father and not Son.
There was never – a time – that God was Father and not Son.
There was never God the Father and not the Son.
There was never God the Father and not the Son and not the Holy Spirit.
So too the oneness of Lex Credendi, Lex Orandi, and Lex Vivendi in our minds — insofar as we are made in the image and likeness of God.

Just a thought but sometimes I think that because this is such a very important message relevant to the salvation of souls, the glory of God and also to salvaging any good that’s left of the Catholic Church that possibly what happens is the better bishops like Bishop Athanasius are being attacked in ways unknown to us by diabolical entities so the few decent bishops are thwarted from speaking the total truth much in the same way that Sister Lucia said she was attacked by demons and wasn’t able to write down the very important message of the 3rd Secret of Fatima for over 3 months. So bishops definitely need our prayers at the least.

True and we’re all responsible to some extent for this mess. St. John Eudes tells us that when God is angry with His people he sends them BAD priests, so He’s been sending us BAD priests (including Popes, Cardinals and Bishops) for over 50 years now and, yes, BAD priests will try to poison it’s flock because that’s what’s BAD priests do.